PTAB

IPR2019-00805

Olympus Corp Of Americas v. General Electric Technology GmbH

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Ultrasonic Inspection Probe Carrier System for Performing Non-Destructive Testing
Brief Description: The ’383 patent relates to a carrier system for an ultrasonic probe used to perform non-destructive testing on tubes and their welds. The system features a carrier with a curved base and first and second side arms biased toward each other to removably secure the carrier around a tube, allowing the probe to be rotated around the tube's circumference for inspection.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Dobrynin (SU 1233035).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Dobrynin, which discloses a "Device for Non-Destructive Inspection of Cylindrical Products," teaches every limitation of the challenged independent claims. Dobrynin’s device includes a semi-cylindrical base (the claimed "curved base") with a pair of pivotally connected, spring-loaded gripping arms (the claimed "first and second side arms"). An ultrasonic transducer (the claimed "ultrasonic probe") is mounted to the base. The arms are biased toward each other by a spring to firmly attach the device around a cylindrical product (a "tube"), and the entire device is manually rotated to inspect the product's circumference. Dependent claims reciting wheels (rollers), a spring force, and accommodation for different tube diameters were also alleged to be disclosed.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Dobrynin (SU 1233035) and Simmons (Patent 8,146,430).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that the base system of Dobrynin could be modified with features from Simmons to arrive at the invention of claims 2, 8, and 27. For claim 2, which adds a "couplant tube," Petitioner pointed to Simmons's disclosure of coupling fluid ports and a supply line to facilitate ultrasonic coupling between a sensor and a tube. For claims 8 and 27, which require the carrier to have a low profile to avoid interference from adjacent tubes, Petitioner cited Simmons's express teaching of a "relatively low profile" sensor design (less than 0.5 inches) for this exact purpose.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Simmons's teachings with Dobrynin to achieve predictable benefits. Adding a couplant system as taught by Simmons was a well-known method to improve the quality of the ultrasonic signal in a system like Dobrynin's. Similarly, modifying Dobrynin's probe to have a lower profile as shown in Simmons was a simple design choice to increase the device's utility in crowded environments with closely positioned pipes.
- Expectation of Success: Success was expected because incorporating a couplant system and reducing the profile of inspection probes were common, routine, and conventional design choices in the field of non-destructive testing to improve performance and expand applicability.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Simmons (Patent 8,146,430).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Simmons, which discloses a method for conveying an ultrasonic sensor around a tube, anticipates all challenged claims. Simmons's flexible tension link, comprising multiple linked elements, forms the claimed "curved base" as it wraps around and conforms to the tube. The distal and proximal linked elements function as the claimed "first and second side arms," which are pivotally attached and biased toward the tube by spring pairs. An ultrasonic sensor ("probe") is mounted on a distal element, and the assembly is rotated around the tube's circumference to inspect welds. Simmons also explicitly discloses the features of dependent claims, including couplant tubes (coupling fluid ports), an encoder, and a low-profile design for inspection near adjacent tubes.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Dobrynin or Simmons with Dubbeldam (Application # 2009/0145249) to teach an encoder for tracking the probe's position, and with Daoud (Patent 4,944,485) to teach the use of a torsion spring as the biasing force.

"tube": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a cylindrical body." This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent's specification, which states the term can include "any cylindrical body," and allows the "cylindrical products" of Dobrynin to meet the limitation.
"curved": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "having an arc shape." This is based on the specification's description and the patent owner's arguments during prosecution, where the applicant distinguished prior art by characterizing it as "flat and linear" in contrast to their "curved in shape" base.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-14, 17, 18, 21-23, 26, and 27 of the ’383 Patent as unpatentable.